Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Under the UCMJ, which articles specifically address obeying or refusing unlawful orders (include article numbers)?
Executive Summary
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 is the primary provision that governs a service member’s duty to obey orders and the criminal consequences of failure to obey; Articles 90 and 91 also criminalize willful disobedience to superior commissioned and noncommissioned officers respectively, and other articles (e.g., 94, 133, 134) can be implicated in related contexts [1] [2] [3]. Courts and commentators stress that a service member must refuse only manifestly illegal orders — those that are plainly criminal or unlawful under the Constitution, federal law, or international law — and the burden of proving an order was manifestly illegal typically falls on the accused after the fact [4] [5] [6]. Recent analyses and case law through mid-2025 reinforce Article 92 as the focal point for disputes over unlawful orders while noting practical and legal complexities when orders come from civilian authorities or when lawfulness is unclear [7] [3].
1. Why Article 92 dominates the debate — the law that tells soldiers what to do and not do
Article 92 explicitly criminalizes failure to obey a lawful order, failure to obey general orders or regulations, and dereliction of duty, making it the central UCMJ provision for obedience and refusal disputes; legal guides and reviews repeatedly identify Article 92 as the primary statute service members confront when charged for disobedience [8] [2]. Scholarly and practice-oriented sources point out that Article 92’s text and doctrinal application require analysis of whether an order was lawful, who issued it, and whether the accused knew or should have known the duty to obey — a framework that leaves significant legal questions about borderline cases and the procedural path for resolving lawfulness [8] [5]. Courts and commentators emphasize that Article 92 contains distinct subparts for general orders, specific orders, and dereliction, which practitioners rely on to parse scenarios where obedience and refusal intersect with mission requirements and criminal liability [1] [2].
2. Articles 90 and 91: When disobedience targets different ranks
Articles 90 and 91 criminalize willful disobedience toward commissioned and noncommissioned superiors respectively, creating rank-specific offenses that interact with Article 92 when assessing refusal or obedience to an order. Analysis indicates that prosecutors often choose between Article 90/91 and Article 92 based on the identity of the ordering officer and the factual matrix — for example, refusing a direct command from a commissioned officer may trigger Article 90, while refusal of a noncommissioned officer’s order implicates Article 91 [1] [7]. Commentators warn that these articles do not themselves define lawfulness standards differently from Article 92, but they change evidentiary angles and potential punishments, so practitioners look across all three articles when mounting defenses or deciding charges [7] [3].
3. The “manifestly illegal” threshold and the burden that follows refusal
Legal commentary and recent cases articulate a high bar: service members are required to disobey only orders that are manifestly illegal, such as explicit commands to commit crimes like murder, torture, or crimes against humanity; anything less clear exposes a member to UCMJ charges if they refuse [4] [5]. Sources from 2024–2025 emphasize that proving an order was manifestly illegal is fact- and law-intensive and typically plays out at court-martial where military judges decide lawfulness; this places the burden on accused service members to justify refusal often after being charged [6] [4]. Recent judicial discussion reiterates that ambiguous orders require clarification, not unilateral disobedience, and that lawful civilian orders to the military raise special procedural questions about how Article 92 and dereliction charges apply [7] [3].
4. Other UCMJ provisions and the practical landscape commanders and lawyers see
Beyond Articles 90–92, prosecutors and defense counsel treat Articles 94 (mutiny, sedition), 133 (conduct unbecoming), and 134 (general article) as fallback tools to address misconduct around orders that fall outside straightforward disobedience charges; these articles capture broader misconduct or prejudicial conduct when direct-order statutes don’t fit [7] [3]. Analysts note that real-world disputes frequently involve operational complexity — unclear mission guidance, conflicting civilian directives, or emergency conditions — prompting commanders to seek clarification and counsel and pushing many contested refusals into administrative or disciplinary channels rather than straightforward court-martial prosecutions [6] [7]. The evolving case law through 2025 indicates courts balancing military necessity, command authority, and individual criminal responsibility when orders implicate criminal acts [3].
5. Bottom line for service members and legal practitioners navigating unlawful orders
The settled legal architecture requires reliance on Article 92 as the starting point, with Articles 90 and 91 addressing rank-specific disobedience and other articles available for related misconduct; but the operative standard for safe refusal is whether an order is manifestly illegal — a determination usually made after the fact by military tribunals [8] [4]. Practitioners and commentators from 2024–2025 advise that service members seek clarification through the chain of command and legal assistance promptly when in doubt, because courts have repeatedly signaled that unilateral refusal to ambiguous orders carries significant risk unless the illegality is plain and obvious [5] [6].